Not so fast
Bill. I never said that I won't accept a pro-LDS answer - I just won't accept
your refusal to answer as a good answer to the question. So far you have
completely evaded it, instead directing (again) your criticisms not at my
argument, but at me! Re-read my question if you wish to comment, and respond to
my points.

Just so people know, Polygamy today is not what it was back in the time of
Joseph Smith. Yes Joseph had a lot of wives but There were no children other
than those he had with Emma. If you would look at a list of his wives you would
know that at least 10 of them were had themselves sealed to him after he died.

I don't see any LDS comments here that are objective on this subject. Maybe
it's me, but when 68% of a group feel a past practice is immoral today, you have
to ask 'Why the paradigm shift?'

Then you have to ask why the group
still has all the former instructions and caveats present in its "by-laws,
i.e., D&C 132. It is fairly incomprehensible to Biblical believers on all
levels, to believe that any order of heaven would be considered immoral on
earth.

But that is the conundrum of this issue from its first
introduction to Christian America. Mormons may not like the comparison, but it
distanced Biblical believers on the same level as Muslims entering their
communities. They were engaged in a lifestyle that was explicitly condemned in
the text, yet they cited patriarchs and kings who practiced it, as if everything
a Biblical king or patriarch did was okay because God blessed them on another
level.

No Biblical prophets practiced plural marriage, and the New
Testament settled the issue for adherents to Biblical truth. No amount of
debate or scripture-twisting will change that. And now you view Fundamentalists
like America viewed you.

I agree that it is interesting that Joseph Smith has no
known children on record from his polygamous marriages. Though Fanny Alger was
not really a wife of Joseph Smiths, there is some account that he may have
fathered a child with her, but we can't say with any certainty.

All
of this notwithstanding, your comment ignores the broader landscape of polygamy
where most of the early "brethren" had many children with many women.

Bill in NebraskaKevin: The same suggestion goes to you as I gave to
Brahmabull and LDS4: Read Chapter 10 of the Gospel Principles book

Since, we belive in continued revelation, continued modern scripture then it
stands to reason that it is continued via the talks as I mentioned.

KJK: Sorry, but the procedure regarding revelqation is as follows - The only
one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church,
who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so
accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.
And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church
works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to
accept it as truth. (Teachings of Harold B. Lee)

Sections 137 &
138 were revelations and they needed to be sustained via Common Consent. The
Manifesto and Priesthood revelation were presented in Conference and yet they
too had to be sustained via Common Consent.

GemimiNo Biblical prophets practiced plural marriage, and the New
Testament settled the issue for adherents to Biblical truth. No amount of debate
or scripture-twisting will change that. And now you view Fundamentalists like
America viewed you.

KJKAs stated earlier, God, not David, gave
David those wives in 2Sam. 12:7-12. David didn't multiply wives unto himself.
God wanted David to have them and gave them to him and said that if they weren't
enough, He (GOD) would have given him more. God then gave the women to another
INDIVIDUAL man thus allowing (commanding?) that INDIVIDUAL man to be polygamous
and to lie with them in the sight of the sun.

We also know that
Paul's command that bishops and elders have only one wife shows that polygamy
was at least tolerated in the early Church otherwise such a restriction would
not have been given.

To say that polygamy is definitionally sinful is
clearly unbiblical.

I'd have NO problem with the Fundamentalists if
they quit marrying underage girls. If consenting adults want to do it, they
should be able to. 1 Cor. 10:29 condemns using subjective morals to justify
infringing upon others' rights.

The poll and this article are not very nuanced. Polygamy is an eternal principle
that is currently disallowed. Thus people who say breaking the current
regulations is morally wrong today may actually have a more complex belief about
polygamy in the abstract. Fortunately the comments here provide a better
understanding than the article.